chipperjones wrote:Had some good vibes today on my MBE PQs (although still need to shave a minute or two off). Planning to take Milestone 2 tomorrow. Just about to 50% on Progress Bar - four weeks out.

chipperjones wrote:Had some good vibes today on my MBE PQs (although still need to shave a minute or two off). Planning to take Milestone 2 tomorrow. Just about to 50% on Progress Bar - four weeks out.

Torts MBE PQ #4 - 85%Evidence MBE PQ#4 - 85%4 Practice Essays

Is it slacking if I call it a day? Lol.

Need to start the mixed MBEs. Seems like those will be harder...

Definitely competing for most obnoxious post of the day.

not gonna call anyone out but someone was complaining about a 90% set a page or so back.

chipperjones wrote:Had some good vibes today on my MBE PQs (although still need to shave a minute or two off). Planning to take Milestone 2 tomorrow. Just about to 50% on Progress Bar - four weeks out.

Torts MBE PQ #4 - 85%Evidence MBE PQ#4 - 85%4 Practice Essays

Is it slacking if I call it a day? Lol.

Need to start the mixed MBEs. Seems like those will be harder...

Definitely competing for most obnoxious post of the day.

not gonna call anyone out but someone was complaining about a 90% set a page or so back.

Well, I just bombed my first evidence MBE session. Please reassure me with similar experiences and gradual improvement. There were very few questions that had more than 50% accurate rates looking at the percentages, so I'm hoping this is normal.

Evidence can be brutal because of two topics: character evidence (including specific instances of conduct) and hearsay. Plus, some subjects are just an Achilles heel for a while, and not because of subject matter: it seems like the operative facts are sometimes buried deep within a paragraph of irrelevant information.

For instance, I haven't scored above a 70% on any of the Contracts MBE PQs...and I've done all 5. It's not that I don't know the concepts; I just don't think I've gotten used to the way questions are asked and to spotting the few dispositive words in the fact pattern.

somuchbooty wrote:Well, I just bombed my first evidence MBE session. Please reassure me with similar experiences and gradual improvement. There were very few questions that had more than 50% accurate rates looking at the percentages, so I'm hoping this is normal.

I just moved onto the first mixed set today. My experience with the topic-centric sets was that my scores would, in general, gradually grow throughout each practice set (With a few outliers here and there, usually when I was really tired). My fifth and final sets were all over 70 percent though.

I'd wait until I at least do one, possibly even two, more sets before panicking. Sometimes the first, 17 question set is just weird in general, especially if you've never seen those types of questions before. It took me some time to realize "okay, this is how these types of questions work and should be read".

Lastly, and I know it's cliche, but you're not going to master every subject, so even if your evidence is a tad bit weaker than your other areas, just realize that you'll probably make up for it in other areas.

somuchbooty wrote:Well, I just bombed my first evidence MBE session. Please reassure me with similar experiences and gradual improvement. There were very few questions that had more than 50% accurate rates looking at the percentages, so I'm hoping this is normal.

Evidence is one of the easiest things to get better at, I think. The hardest parts are character evidence and hearsay (as someone else mentioned). You might try writing down each of the hearsay exceptions. That helped me a lot — just writing them out. But I feel like evidence is tough at first but becomes really easy once you memorize the exceptions.

somuchbooty wrote:Well, I just bombed my first evidence MBE session. Please reassure me with similar experiences and gradual improvement. There were very few questions that had more than 50% accurate rates looking at the percentages, so I'm hoping this is normal.

thanks all, yeah i am worried because constitutional law still confuses me and i hated crim law so I needed a pick me up to prepare me for the next few weeks.

I hated Crim, too, and it has turned out to be my best area. I think you might start slow on Con Law but the rules start making sense just by drilling PQs. Evidence and Civ Pro can be a little daunting too with esoteric intricacies, but I think understanding the underlying policies that drive those help you get to the right answer (or at least eliminate the wrong) when you're in a pinch. Crim Pro though. That messes with me. I have no advice.

Bolded. You'll get it through exposure. I'm still only at 63% in evidence, but that's a lot better than it was.

anon sequitur wrote:evidence is just hard man. I thought I knew it after going through the lecture, but I didn't. It got way better after two sets, but still hard.

Someone posted a link here to the Stanford's bar outlines (don't remember who that person was, but thank you for that!). The long outline for Evidence (9 pages) has changed my life! I think I finally understand the subject after reading that outline.

Bragging about getting high scores on the MBE is just bragging about wasting your damn time. Everyone's goal should be to spend the bare minimum amount of time studying for this stupid thing as possible.

anon sequitur wrote:evidence is just hard man. I thought I knew it after going through the lecture, but I didn't. It got way better after two sets, but still hard.

Someone posted a link here to the Stanford's bar outlines (don't remember who that person was, but thank you for that!). The long outline for Evidence (9 pages) has changed my life! I think I finally understand the subject after reading that outline.

anon sequitur wrote:evidence is just hard man. I thought I knew it after going through the lecture, but I didn't. It got way better after two sets, but still hard.

Someone posted a link here to the Stanford's bar outlines (don't remember who that person was, but thank you for that!). The long outline for Evidence (9 pages) has changed my life! I think I finally understand the subject after reading that outline.

chipperjones wrote:Had some good vibes today on my MBE PQs (although still need to shave a minute or two off). Planning to take Milestone 2 tomorrow. Just about to 50% on Progress Bar - four weeks out.

Torts MBE PQ #4 - 85%Evidence MBE PQ#4 - 85%4 Practice Essays

Is it slacking if I call it a day? Lol.

Need to start the mixed MBEs. Seems like those will be harder...

Definitely competing for most obnoxious post of the day.

not gonna call anyone out but someone was complaining about a 90% set a page or so back.

anon sequitur wrote:evidence is just hard man. I thought I knew it after going through the lecture, but I didn't. It got way better after two sets, but still hard.

Someone posted a link here to the Stanford's bar outlines (don't remember who that person was, but thank you for that!). The long outline for Evidence (9 pages) has changed my life! I think I finally understand the subject after reading that outline.

meant to offer my thanks awhile ago for the OP of the Stanford outlines. They're not ultra comprehensive, but much more readable as the Themis long outlines, and better at giving you the "point" of a particular group of laws.

I guess I will be the lone dissenter and say that my grader is actually great. She gives me tons of very specific comments and even tracks my improvement on certain things (like structure or style) from essay to essay.

On the other hand, I missed two weeks of bar prep for graduation and then revising my student note, so I barely broke 40% today and am still learning Evidence. This means I'm turning in my essays pretty late. So maybe she had more time?

Can anyone teach me Supplemental Jurisdiction? I know that its a way of circumventing the SMJ requirements, but I am having trouble learning exactly when it applies and to which parties claims/joinders, and whether diversity need not be broken.

paulshortys10 wrote:Can anyone teach me Supplemental Jurisdiction? I know that its a way of circumventing the SMJ requirements, but I am having trouble learning exactly when it applies and to which parties claims/joinders, and whether diversity need not be broken.

Ok, doing this because I think it will be helpful for me to actually write this out.

Federal Courts must have Subject Matter Jurisdiction (power to decide the matter) and Personal Jurisdiction (power over the parties to the suit). When determining if the court has SMJ, the Predominate Claim must fall under two categories:1. Federal Question - a claim that arises under federal law. 2. Diversity - (1) No single plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any single defendant at the time the lawsuit is filed and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (AIC >$75k).

When there are multiple claims in the dispute, supplemental jurisdiction is the policy that allows a federal court to decide a legal question normally tried in state courts. Claims that normally fall under state jurisdiction must share a common nucleus of operative fact (CNOF) with the Predominate Claim to be litigated in federal court.

If the Predominate Claim is based on a Federal Question, then diversity does not matter. This applies to any new parties, claims, anything.

However, when Predominate Claim is based on federal SMJ due to Diversity (instead of a Federal Question), then, if using supplemental jurisdiction to bring in additional claims or parties, diversity must be maintained when adding new parties or claims to the suit (otherwise it could be litigated in state court).

Below are the requirements to maintain Diversity, so that Supplemental Jurisdiction can still be used to bring in the new claim/party.

Permissive Joinder: CNOF + Diversity (AIC new party >$75k not required)Compulsory Joinder: CNOF + Diversity (AIC new party >$75k not required) Note: Supplemental jurisdiction in this matter is tricky. The court looks at a variety of factors, like whether the party was intentionally originally left out of the claim so the case could be brought in federal court. Counterclaims: CNOF + Diversity, (AIC for new claim >$75k not required)Cross Claims: CNOF (No AIC, No Diversity needed)Intervenors: CNOF + DiversityInterpleaders: CNOF + DiversityFederal Statutory Interpleaders: CNOF + Diversity (between the Stakeholder and ANY defendant) + AIC > $500

Basically, if the jurisdictional basis for the Predominate Claim is Diversity, adding additional parties or claims using supplemental jurisdiction must not destroy diversity, with the exception of cross claims and sometimes compulsory joinders.